What's Politics Without A Good Brawl?

October 30, 1985|By Stephen Chapman, Tribune Media Services

The nominations aren't all in yet, but already there is a clear leader in the race for Congress' Most Ridiculous Bill of the Year. Its sponsor, Republican Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, says he wants to restore noble things like ''fairness, openness and balance'' to political campaigns. The real intent and likely result of his bill is just the opposite -- to give incumbent officeholders yet another advantage in electoral contests.

Danforth's idea is to put new restrictions on ''negative'' political advertisements on TV and radio. If a candidate runs an ad attacking his opponent, he will have to utter the disparaging words himself. Any station running an ad violating this rule will have to provide free air time to the wronged opponent. If the attack comes from a political action committee or someone else who is not a candidate, the criticized candidate again gets a free rebuttal.

The semblance of balance in the bill -- the same restrictions apply to both incumbents and challengers -- recalls Anatole France's remark that ''the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges.'' Most negative ads are broadcast by challengers trying to rouse the public to change the status quo, or by political action committees who share the challenger's goal. Most incumbents, fearful of boosting their challenger by attacking him, pretend that he doesn't exist.

Requiring the attacker personally to deliver the attack is the feature that lifts this bill out of the realm of simple badness into transcendent absurdity. ''It strikes me as only fair that when mud is thrown, the dirty hands should be in public view,'' says Danforth.

Well, what looks to him like mud may look to the voters like Windex, clearing up the record rather than obscuring it. But even in the case of unfair attacks, there is no danger of secrecy: Ads already have to identify their sponsors.

The rule on ads placed by what Danforth calls ''vigilantes'' is openly aimed at stamping out ads by political action committees and individuals who have a message to spread. The bill tries to revoke what the Constitution guarantees: the right of people to freely express their opinions.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that PACS and individuals can't be prevented from spending as much money as they choose exercising their First Amendment right to comment on campaigns. Danforth knows the government can't censor them. But he also knows that if broadcasters have to provide free air time to match every PAC ad, they will simply refuse to sell time to PACs -- thus performing the censor's job.

His bill treats incumbent politicians the way environmental laws treat the bald eagle, as a species endangered by evil and stupidity. In fact, the only danger to officeholders from unconstrained debate lies in the vexing potential of the truth.